Hi,
Recently we are revisiting vectorization cost setting in
rs6000_builtin_vectorization_cost, and found the current cost of
vec_perm on VSX looks overpriced for Power8 and Power9. The high
cost was set for Power7 single VSU pipe, but Power8 and Power9
have supported more VSX units, the perform
Hi Segher,
on 2019/9/28 上午12:12, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 04:52:30PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>>> (Maybe one of the gen* tools complains any_fix needs a mode? :QI will do
>>> if so, or :P if you like that better).
>>
>> I didn't encounter any errors, it sounds it's allowa
Hi,
I've been dragging this patch along with me for a while.
At the moment, I don't have the resources to fully test it as requested
by Ian in the PR discussion.
So I would like to ask for general comments on this one and hope that
folks with bigger automated test setups can run the patch through
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 03:06:13PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 01:13:42PM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> > On 9/28/19 10:11 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > Committed as r276254.
> > >
> >
> > I am getting this:
> >
> > gfc -c -fcoarray=single pr91802.f90
> > f951: internal co
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 01:13:42PM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> On 9/28/19 10:11 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > Committed as r276254.
> >
>
> I am getting this:
>
> gfc -c -fcoarray=single pr91802.f90
> f951: internal compiler error: free_expr0(): Bad expr type
> 0x809fc9 gfc_report_diagnostic
>
Here is what I just commited.
I try to use the asm trick in the _GLIBCXX_DEBUG_VERIFY_COND_AT but
didn't notice any enhancement. So for now I kept my solution to just
have a non-constexpr call compiler error.
I fix my patch to use __builtin_is_constant_evaluated rather than
std::is_constant_
On Aug 14 2019, Mark Eggleston wrote:
> * gfortran.dg/auto_in_equiv_3.f90: New test.
This test fails everywhere.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510 2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
"And now for something completely different."
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:14 PM Jerry DeLisle wrote:
>
> On 9/23/19 8:12 PM, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> > On 9/23/19 8:52 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> >> On 22 September 2019 22:51:46 CEST, Jerry DeLisle
> >> wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> The attached patch eliminates several warnings by
On 9/28/19 10:11 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
Committed as r276254.
I am getting this:
gfc -c -fcoarray=single pr91802.f90
f951: internal compiler error: free_expr0(): Bad expr type
0x809fc9 gfc_report_diagnostic
../../trunk/gcc/fortran/error.c:776
0x80b62a gfc_internal_error(char const*, .
(since Segher asked, ’n’ is approximately 8 - some of the patterns will be
harder to convert)
Drop the expander for macho_high and use a mode iterator on the define_insn
for @macho_high_ instead.
as usual, tested on powerpc-darwin9 and powerpc64-linux-gnu
applied to mainline
thanks
Iain
gcc/Ch
The attached patch issues errors for a few mangled type-specs.
It has been regression tested on x86_64-*-freebsd. OK to commit?
2019-09-28 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/91714
* decl.c (gfc_match_decl_type_spec): Issue errors for a few
mangled types.
2019-09-28 Steven G
Committed as r276254.
--
steve
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 03:49:06PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> The attached patch has been tested on x86_64-*-freebsd. OK to commit?
>
> 2019-09-24 Steven G. Kargl
>
> PR fortran/91802
> * decl.c (attr_decl1): Check if rank+corank > 15.
>
> 2019-
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 04:28:49PM +0100, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> Fixing the original problem in the module took a few minutes. Making
> the module do something useful took rather longer! The testcase in the
> patch compiles with 6-branch but segfaults in runtime.
>
> Bootstrapped and regtest
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 10:24:51PM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> this patch makes sure that the __def_init variables, which have been
> generated for normal allocatable arrays for quite some time, do not fill
> up huge amounts of space in the object files with zeros. This is done by
> not markin
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 09:45:28AM +0100, Mark Eggleston wrote:
> Original thread starts here
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-09/msg01185.html
>
> OK to commit?
>
I'm not a big fan of option proliferation. If you don't
want to see warns just use -w. Of course, this is just
MHO.
--
For some reason, presumably historical, the `install-gnatlib' target for
the default multilib is invoked twice, once via the `ada.install-common'
target in `gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Make-lang.in' invoked from gcc/ and
again via the `install-libada' target in libada/.
Apart from doing the same twic
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 10:14:34AM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
>
> If no objections, I will commit the attached updated patch
> with a new ChangeLog.
No objection.
--
Steve
Committed as r276253.
--
steve
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 03:07:31PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> The attached patch has been tested on x86_64-*-freebsd. OK to commit?
>
> 2019-09-24 Steven G. Kargl
>
> PR fortran/91864
> * gcc/fortran/io.c (match_io_element): An inquiry parameter
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 7:33 AM Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 10:08:49PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 9/26/19 9:45 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > Jason, you remarked that adding a ck_qual under the ck_ref_bind might be
> > > too much trouble, but it seems it's actually fairl
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 10:08:49PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 9/26/19 9:45 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Jason, you remarked that adding a ck_qual under the ck_ref_bind might be
> > too much trouble, but it seems it's actually fairly simple. The comments
> > hopefully explain my thinking. Is
re-posting, now CC'ing vmakarov who might be the right person to ping
about issues in this file. apologies for the noise if I'm wrong.
--
This seems to be the way the rest of ira-color.c does it.
I hope it's OK. It does fix the segfault.
2019-09-10 Maya Rashish
PR target/85401
On Sat, 2018-08-04 at 18:00 +0900, Oleg Endo wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-08-03 at 14:54 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 07/28/2018 07:04 AM, slyfox.inbox.ru via gcc-patches wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Sergei Trofimovich
> > >
> > > Cc: Andreas Schwab
> > > Cc: Torvald Riegel
> > > Cc: Alexandre Oliva
>
Hi,
This also sets TARGET_HAVE_SPECULATION_SAFE_VALUE to
speculation_safe_value_not_needed for SH.
Tested with "make all-gcc".
Committed on trunk as r276244 and on GCC 9 as r276245.
Cheers,
Oleg
gcc/ChangeLog
PR target/86805
* config/sh/sh.c (TARGET_HAVE_SPECULATION_SAFE_VALUE
I was unable to find an existing tests for timed_mutex::try_lock_until and
recursive_timed_mutex::try_lock_until timing out. It would have been easier
to add a single templated test, but since these classes are tested in
separate directories I've created two separate tests.
* testsuite/30_
The user-defined clock used with shared_mutex::try_lock_for and
shared_mutex::try_lock_shared_for may have higher precision than
__clock_t. We may need to round the duration up to ensure that the timeout
is long enough. (See __timed_mutex_impl::_M_try_lock_for)
* include/std/shared_mutex:
* testsuite/30_threads/shared_timed_mutex/try_lock/3.cc: Convert
existing test to templated function so that it can be called with
both system_clock and steady_clock.
---
libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/shared_timed_mutex/try_lock/3.cc | 17
-
1 file changed,
Move slow_clock test class into a header file so that it can be used by
other tests in the future.
* testsuite/util/slow_clock.h: New file. Move implementation of
slow_clock test class.
* testsuite/30_threads/condition_variable/members/2.cc: Include
slow_clock from
This is the equivalent to PR libstdc++/91906, but for shared_mutex.
A non-standard clock may tick more slowly than std::chrono::steady_clock.
This means that we risk returning false early when the specified timeout
may not have expired. This can be avoided by looping until the timeout time
as repo
* testsuite/30_threads/unique_lock/locking/4.cc: Template test
functions so they can be used to test both steady_clock and
system_clock.
---
libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/unique_lock/locking/4.cc | 12 +--
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git
* testsuite/30_threads/unique_lock/locking/4.cc: Wrap call to
timed_mutex::try_lock_until in VERIFY macro to check its return
value.
---
libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/unique_lock/locking/4.cc | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/libstdc++-
* testsuite/30_threads/timed_mutex/try_lock_until/57641.cc:
Template test functions and use them to test both steady_clock
and system_clock.
---
libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/timed_mutex/try_lock_until/57641.cc | 18
+-
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 d
The pthread_mutex_clocklock function is available in glibc since the 2.30
release. If this function is available in the C library it can be used to
fix PR libstdc++/78237 by supporting steady_clock properly with
timed_mutex.
This means that code using timed_mutex::try_lock_for or
timed_mutex::wait
A non-standard clock may tick more slowly than std::chrono::steady_clock.
This means that we risk returning false early when the specified timeout
may not have expired. This can be avoided by looping until the timeout time
as reported by the non-standard clock has been reached.
Unfortunately, we h
glibc v2.30 added the pthread_mutex_clocklock,
pthread_rwlock_clockrdlock and pthread_rwlock_clockwrlock
functions. These accept CLOCK_MONOTONIC, so they can be used to
implement proper steady_clock support in timed_mutex,
recursive_timed_mutex and shared_timed_mutex that is immune to the
system cl
The pthread_rwlock_clockrdlock and pthread_rwlock_clockwrlock functions
were added to glibc in v2.30. They have also been added to Android
Bionic. If these functions are available in the C library then they can be
used to implement shared_timed_mutex::try_lock_until,
shared_timed_mutex::try_lock_fo
Hi,
The attached patch fixes PR 80672.
Tested by building the compiler with "make all-gcc" and manually
invoking it and checking that the option is parsed as expected.
Committed to trunk as r276240, GCC 9 as r276241, GCC 8 as r276242, GCC
7 as r276243.
Cheers,
Oleg
gcc/ChangeLog
PR tar
On Sun, 2018-07-15 at 14:30 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> Per Oleg's comment in the PR, the second block is dead and should be
> removed...
>
> Committing to the trunk. While I'm confident this won't change
> anything, my tester will bootstrap sh4 & sh4eb overnight for
> additional
> verification.
37 matches
Mail list logo